We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Anyway, here’s what has come over that transom that has piqued our interest:

We were waiting for this issue to come up: The Colorado Court of Appeals held that Dish Network did not run afoul of the Colorado Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute (which prohibits employers from firing employees for doing things off the clock that are legal) when Dish Network fired a quadriplegic man for failing a drug test. The man uses medical marijuana to control muscle spasms. Under Colorado statute, that marijuana use cannot be criminally prosecuted by the state. In a 2-1 decision, the court held that Dish could fire the man because the court could “find no legislative intent to extend employment protection to those engaged in activities that violate federal law.”

We recommend this recent commentary in the New York Times about the mixed reviews for the SEC’s whistleblower office, which was inaugurated in August 2011 partly in response to criticism that Bernie Madoff’s scheme could have been uncovered sooner if the SEC had taken seriously the reports of some tipsters.

The very curious suit against William Koch, one of the multibillionaire Koch Brothers, in which the plaintiff – a former Koch executive – alleges that Koch and his employees falsely imprisoned him at a Colorado ranch will proceed, a federal judge decided this week.

Whatever happened to good old Netscape: Opera Software is reportedly filing suit in Norway against one its software designers, Trond Werner Hansen, after some of Hansen’s work wound up in a browser being designed by rival Mozilla. Mozilla is not named in the suit.

Related topic hubs

Compare jurisdictions: Pensions & Benefits

“I have found the articles in Lexology/Newsstand to be closely related to the topics I am interested in. The selection feature during registration helps in increasing the relevance of the content of the emails. They’re easy to understand and I appreciate that they are only as long as necessary to cover the essentials. I would recommend it to other attorneys.”